In another act of blatant vandalism the Hindu moral police vandalized a painter’s work because, as various artists are wont to do these days to express their “art”, the young painter had painted various gods “objectionably”. The painter has been arrested for needlessly stirring up communal passions.
Another painter, Hussein, has been on the run for perhaps painting a naked Sita sitting on the tail of Lord Hanuman.
Although I inveterately despise the moral policing and vandalizing, I wonder why these artists cannot leave the gods alone. What are you trying to convey by depicting a naked Sita and why is she riding on the tail of Hanuman? The latest artist had painted, according to various news reports, Vishnu, Durga and Christ in a derogatory manner. Now, you may debate on “what’s derogatory depends on the individual”, if I’m a Hindu then painting a naked Sita sitting upon Hanuman’s tail is derogatory to me, or if I’m a Muslim, painting Allah in various compromising positions is derogatory to me.
Incidentally, the muse of these artists, at least on the Indian sub continent, doesn’t dabble with a religion like Islam that would straight away go for their heads. Their “arty” side only manifests itself for communities that protest almost tokenly. Vandalizing a painter’s work is nothing compared to a Haji Yaqoob Qureishi announcing a reward of 51 crores for the head of the Danish cartoonist. The most extreme case, when it comes to other, comparatively tolerant communities is, Bal Thackeray commanding the Shiv Sainiks to burn James Laine’s controversial book on Shivaji.
So is painting gods naked, or even showing them copulating with all and sundry bad, and should it always bring about violent protests? No. First of all, neither Bal Thackery nor that Haji have a right to react like this, in fact these guys should be arrested. Then when is it good and when is it bad?
It depends on the subject. It depends on the philosophy of the depiction. What’s your message? What are you trying to convey? I can perfectly understand the Danish cartoons, but what did Hussein try to convey? What was his philosophy behind the naked Sita? And even if there is a sound reason, has it ever been published in any newspaper or magazine of repute? Has any channel interviewed him and tried to find what message he wants to give through his paintings of gods, and even Bharat Mata doing “objectionable” things?
I think people who resort to such gimmicks are nothing but crony artists. As artists, they have got nothing much to say. They create controversial paintings just be controversial because then they can become victims and hence, poster boys for the secular hypochondriacs.
Why didn’t great artists like Raja Ravi Verma, Picasso, Rembrandt and Vincent van Gogh paint naked gods and goddesses to express their art? Great artists like Michael Angelo dabbled with religious controversies but they had a genuine message to articulate through their creativity. You don’t have to touch the raw nerves in order to prove your art. For instance, look at the work of this pavement chalk artist: does he require controversial creations to express himself?
Technorati Tags: art, painting naked gods, mf hussein, controversial art
Comments on this entry are closed.